肿瘤学现行四种非常规治疗程序的样本分析

Q Medicine Forschende Komplementarmedizin Pub Date : 1998-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000057112
Büschel, Kaiser, Weiger, Weigang, Birkmann, Gallmeier
{"title":"肿瘤学现行四种非常规治疗程序的样本分析","authors":"Büschel,&nbsp;Kaiser,&nbsp;Weiger,&nbsp;Weigang,&nbsp;Birkmann,&nbsp;Gallmeier","doi":"10.1159/000057112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Best-Case Analyses of 4 Current Unconventional Therapies in OncologyBest-case analyses are - under certain circumstances - a useful method to decide on the tumor-specific efficacy of unconventional treatments, without performing formal clinical studies and with limited expenditure. As part of the activities of the 'Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Krebstherapie', sponsored by the 'Deutsche Krebshilfe', an analysis and second-opinion judgement (according to internationally accepted standards) of their 'best cases' was offered to 36 manufacturers and users of unconventional cancer drugs and methods, who in public propagated these as effective cancer therapies. Only few of the approached offerers were both willing to cooperate and able to provide significant documentation for such an analysis. Therefore, only four best-case analyses could be performed completely. The work-up of the available documentation was not very convincing in all four cases, especially when considering that a positive selection from hundreds or even thousands of applications had taken place. The results of the analyses did not reveal any well-founded evidence for a tumor-specific effectiveness of the corresponding applications. The discrepancy between the offerers and the working group's judgements results especially from the circumstance that the majority of the treatments were not performed on patients with advanced tumor disease without any other conventional therapies, but additionally to established therapies or as an adjuvant treatment protocol. Other reasons were the obvious misjudgement of findings, the assessment of unimportant or unsuitable parameters, the misinterpretation of the probably normal development as a treatment success or also documentation inappropriate for evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"5 Suppl S1 ","pages":"68-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057112","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bestfallanalysen zu 4 aktuellen unkonventionellen Behandlungsverfahren in der Onkologie.\",\"authors\":\"Büschel,&nbsp;Kaiser,&nbsp;Weiger,&nbsp;Weigang,&nbsp;Birkmann,&nbsp;Gallmeier\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000057112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Best-Case Analyses of 4 Current Unconventional Therapies in OncologyBest-case analyses are - under certain circumstances - a useful method to decide on the tumor-specific efficacy of unconventional treatments, without performing formal clinical studies and with limited expenditure. As part of the activities of the 'Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Krebstherapie', sponsored by the 'Deutsche Krebshilfe', an analysis and second-opinion judgement (according to internationally accepted standards) of their 'best cases' was offered to 36 manufacturers and users of unconventional cancer drugs and methods, who in public propagated these as effective cancer therapies. Only few of the approached offerers were both willing to cooperate and able to provide significant documentation for such an analysis. Therefore, only four best-case analyses could be performed completely. The work-up of the available documentation was not very convincing in all four cases, especially when considering that a positive selection from hundreds or even thousands of applications had taken place. The results of the analyses did not reveal any well-founded evidence for a tumor-specific effectiveness of the corresponding applications. The discrepancy between the offerers and the working group's judgements results especially from the circumstance that the majority of the treatments were not performed on patients with advanced tumor disease without any other conventional therapies, but additionally to established therapies or as an adjuvant treatment protocol. Other reasons were the obvious misjudgement of findings, the assessment of unimportant or unsuitable parameters, the misinterpretation of the probably normal development as a treatment success or also documentation inappropriate for evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"volume\":\"5 Suppl S1 \",\"pages\":\"68-71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057112\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在某些情况下,最佳案例分析是一种有用的方法,可以确定非常规治疗的肿瘤特异性疗效,而无需进行正式的临床研究和有限的支出。作为由“德意志医院”赞助的“Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Krebstherapie”活动的一部分,向36家非常规癌症药物和方法的制造商和使用者提供了他们的“最佳案例”分析和第二意见判断(根据国际公认的标准),他们公开宣传这些药物和方法是有效的癌症疗法。在接触的提议者中,只有少数人既愿意合作,又能够为这种分析提供重要的文件。因此,只有四个最佳案例分析可以完全执行。在所有四个案例中,对现有文件的整理并不是很令人信服,特别是考虑到从数百甚至数千份申请中进行了积极的选择。分析的结果并没有显示任何有充分根据的证据表明相应的应用具有肿瘤特异性的有效性。提供者与工作组的判断之间的差异主要是由于大多数治疗不是对没有任何其他常规治疗的晚期肿瘤患者进行的,而是在现有治疗方法的基础上进行的,或作为辅助治疗方案。其他原因包括对结果的明显错误判断,对不重要或不适当参数的评估,将可能正常的发展误解为治疗成功,或者也有不适合评估的文件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bestfallanalysen zu 4 aktuellen unkonventionellen Behandlungsverfahren in der Onkologie.

Best-Case Analyses of 4 Current Unconventional Therapies in OncologyBest-case analyses are - under certain circumstances - a useful method to decide on the tumor-specific efficacy of unconventional treatments, without performing formal clinical studies and with limited expenditure. As part of the activities of the 'Arbeitsgruppe Biologische Krebstherapie', sponsored by the 'Deutsche Krebshilfe', an analysis and second-opinion judgement (according to internationally accepted standards) of their 'best cases' was offered to 36 manufacturers and users of unconventional cancer drugs and methods, who in public propagated these as effective cancer therapies. Only few of the approached offerers were both willing to cooperate and able to provide significant documentation for such an analysis. Therefore, only four best-case analyses could be performed completely. The work-up of the available documentation was not very convincing in all four cases, especially when considering that a positive selection from hundreds or even thousands of applications had taken place. The results of the analyses did not reveal any well-founded evidence for a tumor-specific effectiveness of the corresponding applications. The discrepancy between the offerers and the working group's judgements results especially from the circumstance that the majority of the treatments were not performed on patients with advanced tumor disease without any other conventional therapies, but additionally to established therapies or as an adjuvant treatment protocol. Other reasons were the obvious misjudgement of findings, the assessment of unimportant or unsuitable parameters, the misinterpretation of the probably normal development as a treatment success or also documentation inappropriate for evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unusual claims, normative process: on the use and stringency of the scientific method. Prospective controlled cohort studies on long-term therapy of cervical cancer patients with a mistletoe preparation (Iscador). Supportive evidence for the anticancerous potential of alternative medicine against hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. [Repeated cold water stimulations (hydrotherapy according to Kneipp) in patients with COPD]. [Evaluation of use of complementary and alternative medicine by schizophrenic patients].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1